Legal Opinion

Pierce v. Stablemen's Local 8760

California Supreme Court

Decided July 6, 1909No. S.F. No. 4092PublishedCited by 76 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

The plaintiff went into equity seeking an injunction to restrain the defendants from illegal interference with its business. Plaintiff conducted a livery, board, and feed stable in the city and county of .San Francisco. The officers and representatives of defendant made request of him to “unionize” his stable by discharging his non-union employees and employing union men in their places. Upon his refusal, a strike of the union men was declared. Following the strike, a boycott was decreed. A patrol about plaintiff’s place of business was established, and, under the findings, these…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. In Re DebsSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. Vegelahn v. GuntnerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
  3. National Protective Ass'n of Steam Fitters & Helpers v. CummingNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
  4. J. F. Parkinson Co. v. Building Trades CouncilCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Ex parte JentzschCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by76 opinions

  1. Truax v. CorriganSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  2. American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  3. In Re BellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Imperial Ice Co. v. RossierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  5. McKay v. Retail Automobile Salesmen's Local Union No. 1067California Supreme Court · 1940

71 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API